Jump to content

Virual Caches


M3lodious

Recommended Posts

I don't want them to come back if they're going to interfere with physical caches. No way! That was my biggest problem with them. I can easily filter them, but you can't ignore something that is preventing you from placing a cache nearby.

Link to post

Quite a few people would like them back.

 

Some people think that Waymarking.com is the replacment for virtual caches. But then some other people thought that waypoint.org was the replacment. All are different. Virtuals had a place.

 

I would love to see them come back, but I can understand that it would be hard to control, so my suggestion is that they be allowed to come back only in places where it is impossible to have a regular cache. The National Parks are a perfect example. I know that they do have Earth Caches, but this past weekend I did Three caches on a hike up to the top of Mt. LeConte in TN. and they were all great, but none would have been a Earth Cache.

Edited by Turtle3863
Link to post

I'd vote for bringing them back, but only if they are tightly controlled (hard to get approved). Most of the virtuals I've found have been pretty pointless, could have been part of a multi or could have supported a micro. There were a few that were great (one was a historical building in a marginal neighborhood - ok to drive through in daylight hours but not ok for non-locals to be out wandering around). I'd like to see them come back, but be limited by strict guidelines.

Link to post
I'd vote for bringing them back, but only if they are tightly controlled (hard to get approved). Most of the virtuals I've found have been pretty pointless, could have been part of a multi or could have supported a micro. There were a few that were great (one was a historical building in a marginal neighborhood - ok to drive through in daylight hours but not ok for non-locals to be out wandering around). I'd like to see them come back, but be limited by strict guidelines.

That's exactly how it was before they were taken off the list of caches that could be submitted. It didn't work so well (as referenced by all the threads started by people who didn't get their virts published)!

Link to post

I don't think this topic will be a dead horse so long as there are grandfathered virtuals on geocaching.com. New geocachers will see these virtuals and will wonder why they can't create new ones. The guidelines don't explain why new virtual caches are no longer allowed on geocaching.com and simply give a link to Waymarking.com without any explaination of how they work there. There is no Waymarking category called virtual cache. A waymark must fit in one of the existing categories or a premium member can start a group to manage a new category. Also, until there is better integration between Waymarking and geocaching and some kind of pocket query for waymarks, it is difficult to combine visiting waymarks with geocaching. Many people enjoy finding virtuals while out geocaching. The virtual is a bonus and usually takes only few seconds to gather the information, but many will linger at a site if it is thought provoking. You currently can get a list of nearest waymarks to a cache, but it's kinda of tough to find something interesting to visit among the Starbucks and McDonalds.

 

I happen to be a big supporter of Waymarking and feel it is the right place for containerless caches. I created the Best Kept Secrets category as the first category on Waymarking.com specifically created to address the needs of some virtuals to make finding the virtual a suprise instead of having it revealed by the category it is in. There is still much that needs to be done for Waymarking to succeed. A successful Waymarking.com would provide a place for locationless caches, virtuals, webcams, earthcaches, history caches, and many more categories that haven't been thought of yet. And yes, these will live along side of categories like Starbucks for people who will want to get the coordinates just in case they need a caffine fix while out looking for geocaches.

Link to post

It's funny how people really want Virtuals to come back, but when you suggest they try Waymarking they resist the idea.

 

tozainamboku Posted Yesterday, 08:44 PM

I don't think this topic will be a dead horse so long as there are grandfathered virtuals on geocaching.com. New geocachers will see these virtuals and will wonder why they can't create new ones.

 

Bingo! I knew I liked you Tozainaboku. As long as the existing Virtuals and their spin-offs remain on Geocaching.com this debate will continue.

 

After talking with the few volunteer Geocache Reviewers that I know, every one of them said they were happy to be free of the headache that Virtual Caches represented. They are too difficult to evaluate, and I suspect people tried to place them just to get the icon in their profile.

 

Show me a Virtual, and I'll show you how it can become a Traditional, Multi-Cache or Puzzle Cache. Everything can be offset to an area that can support a physical cache.

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Link to post

Show me a Virtual, and I'll show you how it can become a Traditional, Multi-Cache or Puzzle Cache. Everything can be offset to an area that can support a physical cache.

I agree. We wanted to place a cache in a meditative garden that is not appropriate for physical caches... so we made it a multi! The waypoints in the gardens are virtual and the final waypoint is a physical cache. We felt like it was more rewarding to have a physical log book to sign at the end of the journey.

 

The only place that might be difficult are areas in National Parks because they are so big. However, I don't think there should be too many caches in National Parks and Earthcaches allow for enough opportunity within them.

Edited by Cache Heads
Link to post

I vote no on virtuals.

 

Better suited over Waymarking.com

 

If it were to be put up for a "vote" to everyone through an E-mail poll, then it might put the matter to rest. It could then be said that all have decided....

 

I vote *yes*. I love the virtuals in Utah...everyone should try at least 2 in places like that and they might change their minds.

 

I think it might be more popular in certain areas than others. Where people love their history or places that have lots of visitors/travelers going through.

 

Shirley~

Link to post
Show me a Virtual, and I'll show you how it can become a Traditional, Multi-Cache or Puzzle Cache. Everything can be offset to an area that can support a physical cache.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

 

So a stand alone virtual is bad, but make that same virtual part of a multi and it becomes good?

 

John

Right.

 

Because there's an actual cache there, not a plaque, scenic view, etc. There's a ton of those (some very cool ones, too!) at Waymarking.com

 

:)

Link to post

Some of the new waymarks are indeed like some of the older virtuals. I know it has been a long, long time since the Waymarking site was started and it has not really taken off. But... If and when TPTB get it running with features similar to the geocaching web site, PQ's as one example, things will be better. Right now, when someone asks about virtuals, they are directed to Waymarking, but the site is not as complete, (feature wise),as it could be. This brings them back to topics like this.

 

That being said, because there are still so few waymarks in most of the areas I cache in, I do the following. If I find one that I am interested in, I manually enter the coordinates where I need them to visit it along with any caches I seek out.

 

I think it is sort of a chicken and egg thing right now. People visiting Waymarking don't find a lot of waymarks in the area they are visiting and have no PQ's to get the ones they do find. TPTB may feel PQ's are unnecessary for waymarks because there are not many areas with a high enough density to justify the work to implement them? I also think as more features are added to the Waymarking site, it will help if TPTB make the interfaces as similar to the geocaching site as possible.

Link to post

Post them on Waymarking.com

I find trying to post a find Waymarking to be very hard, I tried 3 times 2 times they wanted me to write out a more detailed post and do it in proper english (they actually said that) the other one I submitted a photo and the guy said the photo wasn't close enough. So I have given up on Waymarking.

 

I think we need to bring back the virtual caches, i work out of town about 25 to 30 weeks year and I use geocaching as my evening entertainment. I loved being taken to some sight or park by a virtual cache. it was a great way for me to see parts of the area I was in I would not have found on my own. So bring them back

Link to post

Post them on Waymarking.com

I find trying to post a find Waymarking to be very hard, I tried 3 times 2 times they wanted me to write out a more detailed post and do it in proper english (they actually said that) the other one I submitted a photo and the guy said the photo wasn't close enough. So I have given up on Waymarking.

 

I think we need to bring back the virtual caches, i work out of town about 25 to 30 weeks year and I use geocaching as my evening entertainment. I loved being taken to some sight or park by a virtual cache. it was a great way for me to see parts of the area I was in I would not have found on my own. So bring them back

 

Sounds like you like visiting virtual caches. The good news is that you still can as virtual caches are grandfathered and there are still plenty to find. But there are no new virtual caches. Instead, people who want to share an interesting site are asked to submit them to one of the Waymarking categories.

If you like visiting interesting sites in the places you visit, search for exisiting waymarks in the area. You can even filter these to find Waymarking in certain categories you may be more interested in. Like visiting a virtual, some waymarks will have a logging requirement. For Waymarking this often involves posting a picture - and since not everyone takes a camera with them every place they go this has become a area of discussion over on the Waymarking site. Visiting an existing waymark, for the most part, should be no more difficult than finding a virtual cache.

Creating a new waymark is a different story. This is closer to hiding and reporting a new virtual cache. Virtual cache hiders had to submit their cache for review and were often turned down for not meeting the guidelines for virtual caches (mostly not being "wow" enough). Waymarks are submitted to the category managers. Most categories have requirements to provide specific information about the waymark and usually a picture as well. Some category managers go further and want the spelling and grammar on the page to be correct. Again this has been a topic of discussion on the Waymarking forums. Many feel that turning down a waymark because of a spelling or grammar error is a bit too extreme. There has been some talk of allowing the managers to make small corrections to the waymark page or to make the process of asking the submitter to make changes less of a hassle.

I hope you give Waymarking another try and that you provide input to help make Waymarking an enjoyable experience for everyone. :)

Link to post

I like virtuals. If you can tell me how to find the old gc.com style virtuals on Waymarking.com without having to shuffle through stuff I can already find on my Garmin POI I might be interested.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to post

I like virtuals. If you can tell me how to find the old gc.com style virtuals on Waymarking.com without having to shuffle through stuff I can already find on my Garmin POI I might be interested.

Yea, Waymarking usually seems to either have nothing on it, or has stuff that I don't care about. Not sure which is better.

 

I think maybe ONE thing that would Waymarking help is a good tutorial about how to use the various filters/searches. Or is something out there already I just don't know where?

 

edit: clearity

Edited by welch
Link to post

Post them on Waymarking.com

CACHE – Defined by Merriam-Webster OnLine

Main Entry: 2cache

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): cached; cach·ing [As in Geocaching.]

: to place, hide, or store in a cache [As in Geocaching.]

Main Entry: 1cache

Pronunciation: 'kash

Function: noun

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b : a secure place of storage [As in geocache.]

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache [As in geocache.]

 

None of the other “stuff” belongs on geocaching; you are not hiding it, you are directing attention to it for education and enjoyment. EarthCaches, Virtuals [are NOT caches], WebCams and Locationless – [now, that is an oxymoron; it’s the location you are promoting.] They do NOT belong on the Geocaching.com web site. Draw the line and stick to it!!!

Link to post
Some of the new waymarks are indeed like some of the older virtuals. I know it has been a long, long time since the Waymarking site was started and it has not really taken off. But... If and when TPTB get it running with features similar to the geocaching web site, PQ's as one example, things will be better. Right now, when someone asks about virtuals, they are directed to Waymarking, but the site is not as complete, (feature wise),as it could be. This brings them back to topics like this.

 

That being said, because there are still so few waymarks in most of the areas I cache in, I do the following. If I find one that I am interested in, I manually enter the coordinates where I need them to visit it along with any caches I seek out.

 

I think it is sort of a chicken and egg thing right now. People visiting Waymarking don't find a lot of waymarks in the area they are visiting and have no PQ's to get the ones they do find. TPTB may feel PQ's are unnecessary for waymarks because there are not many areas with a high enough density to justify the work to implement them? I also think as more features are added to the Waymarking site, it will help if TPTB make the interfaces as similar to the geocaching site as possible.

 

You might be interested to read the latest updates to Waymarking site which was updated on Tuesday (while your post was Wednesday). LOC downloads was a pretty big addition, with GPX in the works for future releases (harder to do it with Waymarking since the structure varies from category to category... or something like that!)

 

:unsure:

Edited by robert
Link to post

Post them on Waymarking.com

CACHE – Defined by Merriam-Webster OnLine

<snip>

None of the other “stuff” belongs on geocaching; you are not hiding it, you are directing attention to it for education and enjoyment. EarthCaches, Virtuals [are NOT caches], WebCams and Locationless – [now, that is an oxymoron; it’s the location you are promoting.] They do NOT belong on the Geocaching.com web site. Draw the line and stick to it!!!

 

I looked up geocaching and Webster's defines it as....wait, guess a definition from Websters here does not apply.

 

We're not talking about other "stuff", the question was about virtuals which do fit very well on GC, as do Webcams. Even properly approved locationless fit. Waymarking, as mentioned in an earlier post, appears to be no more than a slightly more extensive POI database that is difficult to navigate and does not offer any of the features that "may" make it useful in the eyes of many, if not most, cachers.

 

It says something when you look at all the time defending WM. It's great if it works for you, however it would be nice if people would quit pushing it on those not interested.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to post

We're not talking about other "stuff", the question was about virtuals which do fit very well on GC, as do Webcams. Even properly approved locationless fit. Waymarking, as mentioned in an earlier post, appears to be no more than a slightly more extensive POI database that is difficult to navigate and does not offer any of the features that "may" make it useful in the eyes of many, if not most, cachers.

 

It says something when you look at all the time defending WM. It's great if it works for you, however it would be nice if people would quit pushing it on those not interested.

 

I don't think we are pushing WM on people who are not interested. We are spending a lot of time explaining that while WM can be seen as simply providing a list of POIs that fit one of the categories, it can also be viewed as having many categories of place you can visit. You can select the categories of places you think are interesting. You don't have to visit McDonald's restaurants if you don't think that is interesting. You can visit historic locations or webcams or odd-shaped buildings, whatever you are interested in. Many categories have logging requirements that are very similar to the verification you need to find a virtual cache. There are even a few categories that have been explicitly created to address issues brought up when people say Waymarking doesn't give them some experience they got from virutals. For example, the Best Kept Secrets category allows for waymarks that don't give away what you will find until you go to the site and discover what is there.

 

Virtual caches failed on geocaching.com because they required too much of the volunteer reviewers' time. They had to determine if a phsyical cache could have been placed there and then if the location was novel, of interest to other players, and had a special historic, community or geocaching quality that set it apart from everyday subjects. Too many people submitted virtuals that were not meeting the guidelines. In Waymarking, categories are managed by people interested in that category. Waymarks are created and accepted everyday, unlike virtuals where perhaps only a handfull were accepted durring the last year they were allowed.

 

Waymarking is new. It does not have all the features that geocachers take for granted. But geocaching didn't not always have these features either. There were no Pocket Queries when I began geocaching, and downloading of LOC files was brand new and limited. Waymarking will continue to develop and improve and it will have the features you are looking for. There are already many people who find Waymarking more interesting than geocaching. They have more fun finding out about locations that they may find interesting then finding tupperware hidden in the woods.

Link to post

Virtual caches failed on geocaching.com because they required too much of the volunteer reviewers' time. They had to determine if a phsyical cache could have been placed there and then if the location was novel, of interest to other players, and had a special historic, community or geocaching quality that set it apart from everyday subjects. Too many people submitted virtuals that were not meeting the guidelines. In Waymarking, categories are managed by people interested in that category. Waymarks are created and accepted everyday, unlike virtuals where perhaps only a handfull were accepted durring the last year they were allowed.

 

This is part of the problem that some are coming from a erroneous point of view. Virtuals never failed on geocaching.com. The reason that very few were approved (one of mine apparently among the last) is that during the time prior to officially discontinuing virtuals, GC effectively did it by not approving them, or at the least, very few. The one that I own is also a good example of a reason for them. I could not get permission to hide anything on the property as it is a historical landmark. I tried to make it a webcam and the reviewer suggested the virtual route.

 

A failure of a cache would be that it is not visited, is dangerous or is in someway illegal or offensive. Virtuals were among the most popular if you go by find counts and held there own with caches in their immediate area. The reason for them being discontinued had nothing to do with any perceived failure.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to post

Virtual caches failed on geocaching.com because they required too much of the volunteer reviewers' time. They had to determine if a phsyical cache could have been placed there and then if the location was novel, of interest to other players, and had a special historic, community or geocaching quality that set it apart from everyday subjects. Too many people submitted virtuals that were not meeting the guidelines. In Waymarking, categories are managed by people interested in that category. Waymarks are created and accepted everyday, unlike virtuals where perhaps only a handfull were accepted durring the last year they were allowed.

 

This is part of the problem that some are coming from a erroneous point of view. Virtuals never failed on geocaching.com. The reason that very few were approved (one of mine apparently among the last) is that during the time prior to officially discontinuing virtuals, GC effectively did it by not approving them, or at the least, very few. The one that I own is also a good example of a reason for them. I could not get permission to hide anything on the property as it is a historical landmark. I tried to make it a webcam and the reviewer suggested the virtual route.

 

A failure of a cache would be that it is not visited, is dangerous or is in someway illegal or offensive. Virtuals were among the most popular if you go by find counts and held there own with caches in their immediate area. The reason for them being discontinued had nothing to do with any perceived failure.

 

Just want to point out that before virtuals were restricted to basically few/none getting listed, (which took up much reviewer time for things like explaining why one doesn't qualify and how a cache might possiably be fixed) they were much easier to get listed. Of course the reviewers got more strict when people started complaining (rightlyfully I suppose) that virts were 'blocking up space a regular could go', and 'visiting every historical plaque is boring' or 'my area is being flooded with virtuals that suck'.

Link to post

Just want to point out that before virtuals were restricted to basically few/none getting listed, (which took up much reviewer time for things like explaining why one doesn't qualify and how a cache might possiably be fixed) they were much easier to get listed. Of course the reviewers got more strict when people started complaining (rightlyfully I suppose) that virts were 'blocking up space a regular could go', and 'visiting every historical plaque is boring' or 'my area is being flooded with virtuals that suck'.

 

Virtuals, before the "Wow" requirement, were abused by people who were too cheap or lazy to hide a physical cache. Certainly some of these would bring you to interesting places, but the were some that were pretty lame. Of course log only micros serve the same purpose today. Still everytime I find a micro in a lamppost I am thankful that at least the cache page didn't say, "This is a virtual cache. To receive credit, email me the number painted on the pole." :)

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to post

 

Show me a Virtual, and I'll show you how it can become a Traditional, Multi-Cache or Puzzle Cache. Everything can be offset to an area that can support a physical cache.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

 

I don't really agree here. We enjoyed all the virtuals we found in Yellowstone this year, but I don't think I would have done them if I had to follow offsets on them to an area outside the park where a physical container would be allowed.

 

Finding each of the virtuals through the park added enjoyment to our stay there.

 

2 cents worth...keep the change. :)

Link to post
Cornerstone4 Posted Today, 03:21 PM

 

(The Blue Quasar @ Oct 9 2006, 03:11 PM) *

 

Show me a Virtual, and I'll show you how it can become a Traditional, Multi-Cache or Puzzle Cache. Everything can be offset to an area that can support a physical cache.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

 

I don't really agree here. We enjoyed all the virtuals we found in Yellowstone this year, but I don't think I would have done them if I had to follow offsets on them to an area outside the park where a physical container would be allowed.

 

Finding each of the virtuals through the park added enjoyment to our stay there.

 

2 cents worth...keep the change. laugh.gif

 

I wasn't commenting on the 'enjoyment factor', just current options. I'm glad you've enjoyed Virtuals in the past.

 

Since I was only able to create one Virtual in my area before the door was closed (and it took me over a year to get that one listed), I'm glad I've been able to make another 200+ in that same concept by using Waymarking. Hopefully someday you can visit some of mine as a part of a vacation near Niagara Falls Ontario! Maybe you can get a similar enjoyment from what is being created.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Link to post

Just want to point out that before virtuals were restricted to basically few/none getting listed, (which took up much reviewer time for things like explaining why one doesn't qualify and how a cache might possiably be fixed) they were much easier to get listed. Of course the reviewers got more strict when people started complaining (rightlyfully I suppose) that virts were 'blocking up space a regular could go', and 'visiting every historical plaque is boring' or 'my area is being flooded with virtuals that suck'.

 

Virtuals, before the "Wow" requirement, were abused by people who were too cheap or lazy to hide a physical cache. Certainly some of these would bring you to interesting places, but the were some that were pretty lame. Of course log only micros serve the same purpose today. Still everytime I find a micro in a lamppost I am thankful that at least the cache page didn't say, "This is a virtual cache. To receive credit, email me the number painted on the pole." :)

 

:) Yea that sounds about right. But my point was that virtuals failed (or didn't fail but got moved, or however the changes are explained) doesn't have such a simple explaintion as 'they took up took much reviewer time'. There was a reason they took up time, and multiple factors in how it got to be that way.

Link to post

Just want to point out that before virtuals were restricted to basically few/none getting listed, (which took up much reviewer time for things like explaining why one doesn't qualify and how a cache might possiably be fixed) they were much easier to get listed. Of course the reviewers got more strict when people started complaining (rightlyfully I suppose) that virts were 'blocking up space a regular could go', and 'visiting every historical plaque is boring' or 'my area is being flooded with virtuals that suck'.

 

Virtuals, before the "Wow" requirement, were abused by people who were too cheap or lazy to hide a physical cache. Certainly some of these would bring you to interesting places, but the were some that were pretty lame. Of course log only micros serve the same purpose today. Still everytime I find a micro in a lamppost I am thankful that at least the cache page didn't say, "This is a virtual cache. To receive credit, email me the number painted on the pole." <_<

 

Sure, there was possible abuse of the system by listing so called 'lame virts'. But then TPTB went overboard in the other direction and imposed draconian rules for listing them. There was plenty of middle ground between the 2 that was never explored.

Link to post

Just want to point out that before virtuals were restricted to basically few/none getting listed, (which took up much reviewer time for things like explaining why one doesn't qualify and how a cache might possiably be fixed) they were much easier to get listed. Of course the reviewers got more strict when people started complaining (rightlyfully I suppose) that virts were 'blocking up space a regular could go', and 'visiting every historical plaque is boring' or 'my area is being flooded with virtuals that suck'.

 

Virtuals, before the "Wow" requirement, were abused by people who were too cheap or lazy to hide a physical cache. Certainly some of these would bring you to interesting places, but the were some that were pretty lame. Of course log only micros serve the same purpose today. Still everytime I find a micro in a lamppost I am thankful that at least the cache page didn't say, "This is a virtual cache. To receive credit, email me the number painted on the pole." <_<

 

You forgot about vacation caches. Some people where using virtual caches to place caches outside of there home area. One of the problems with this is that some objects that visitor thought were permanent were not. Then when contacted by locals that the object was gone the cache owner usually just left the listing as is because they never had any of properly maintaining the listing in the first place.

Link to post

Virtual caches were (and continue to be) one of our favorite types and we would love to see them back. However that said I would agree that it was historic sites and National Parks monuments etc, that we enjoy the most. So please count us in as viva la virtual!

Today the counts for waymarks are as follows:

 

U.S. National Register of Historic Places Category -- 1149 historic plaques waymarked

Historic Markers Subcategory -- 5197 historic markers waymarked.

 

Under the virtual cache guidelines in place since 2003 until new submissions were stopped in November 2005, markers like this were immediately archived when submitted as virtual caches. They were specifically mentioned in the listing guidelines as being unsuitable targets for a virtual cache. They're now thriving as waymarks.

 

Those 6,346 waymarks represent 6,346 virtual cache submissions that would've been archived. Those 6,346 waymarks -- just two categories worth -- surpass by several times over the TOTAL number of all virtual caches published worldwide in 2004 and 2005.

 

What you are looking for is alive and well, but in a different location that is more suited to the activity.

 

The Leprechauns

Founder, "Pennsylvania Historic Markers" Waymarking Category

Link to post
Cornerstone4 Posted Today, 03:21 PM

 

(The Blue Quasar @ Oct 9 2006, 03:11 PM) *

 

Show me a Virtual, and I'll show you how it can become a Traditional, Multi-Cache or Puzzle Cache. Everything can be offset to an area that can support a physical cache.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

 

I don't really agree here. We enjoyed all the virtuals we found in Yellowstone this year, but I don't think I would have done them if I had to follow offsets on them to an area outside the park where a physical container would be allowed.

 

Finding each of the virtuals through the park added enjoyment to our stay there.

 

2 cents worth...keep the change. laugh.gif

 

I wasn't commenting on the 'enjoyment factor', just current options. I'm glad you've enjoyed Virtuals in the past.

 

Since I was only able to create one Virtual in my area before the door was closed (and it took me over a year to get that one listed), I'm glad I've been able to make another 200+ in that same concept by using Waymarking. Hopefully someday you can visit some of mine as a part of a vacation near Niagara Falls Ontario! Maybe you can get a similar enjoyment from what is being created.

 

<_< The Blue Quasar

 

I will try to do that if I ever get up there!

 

In all honesty, I think the only time I will ever use Waymarking is if I vacation somewhere where there aren't any regular caches. I would then explore Waymarking to see if there was anything nearby that would interest me.

 

I don't explore any of the other caching sites though either. I still haven't found all the caches on this site! <_<

Link to post

You forgot about vacation caches. Some people where using virtual caches to place caches outside of there home area. One of the problems with this is that some objects that visitor thought were permanent were not. Then when contacted by locals that the object was gone the cache owner usually just left the listing as is because they never had any of properly maintaining the listing in the first place.

 

This was an issue with the review process, not the caches. GC does not allow vacation caches and they should never have been approved.

Link to post

Under the virtual cache guidelines in place since 2003 until new submissions were stopped in November 2005, markers like this were immediately archived when submitted as virtual caches. They were specifically mentioned in the listing guidelines as being unsuitable targets for a virtual cache. They're now thriving as waymarks.

 

Those 6,346 waymarks represent 6,346 virtual cache submissions that would've been archived. Those 6,346 waymarks -- just two categories worth -- surpass by several times over the TOTAL number of all virtual caches published worldwide in 2004 and 2005.

 

A solid argument for bringing back virtuals to GC.

 

Simply tweak the guidelines for what is acceptable and what is not, and there are 6,346 possible virtuals. Then factor in a way to verify with information that can only be found if the actual site is visted, which would reduce the number somewhat, and we're back to having another very viable, and widely popular cache category back. If it is a lame virt on GC, it would obviously be a lame waymark on WM.

 

Then we have the best of both worlds and POI's can/would still remain available on Waymarking.

Link to post
You forgot about vacation caches. Some people where using virtual caches to place caches outside of there home area. One of the problems with this is that some objects that visitor thought were permanent were not. Then when contacted by locals that the object was gone the cache owner usually just left the listing as is because they never had any of properly maintaining the listing in the first place.

You mean like updating coords if they should be off by .14 or so? <_< <_<

Link to post

I would like to see the return of virtuals, but with stricter rulings, such as the return of Earthcaches so that the system does not get flooded with poor or lame examples.

 

I agree with the others that there have been some poor virtuals placed in the past, but some of the surviving ones I've seen in the last six months were great. Virtuals with a task such as being photographed next to it to qualify means that you still have to physically find and visit it. In other places you probably searched the place high and low and there is simply no secure hiding spot to be found but would still like to bring people into the area.

Link to post
Simply tweak the guidelines for what is acceptable and what is not, and there are 6,346 possible virtuals.

That's what the "WOW" factor was, which didn't work because everyone has a different theory on what "WOW" means.

 

Then factor in a way to verify with information that can only be found if the actual site is visted,

Sounds like many Waymarking categories.

 

which would reduce the number somewhat, and we're back to having another very viable, and widely popular cache category back. If it is a lame virt on GC, it would obviously be a lame waymark on WM.

You can filter out categories you consider "lame" on Waymarking, so you never see the things you're not interested in. That eliminates having to visit the site to find out first.

 

Then we have the best of both worlds and POI's can/would still remain available on Waymarking.

A virt is just a POI when there's no cache there.

 

<_<

Link to post

Why are Virual caches not allowed? It's a great way to keep Muggles from messing with a cache in a public place & for scuba caches. Who else wants the virual cache back?

 

I thought this was going to be about "viral" caches <_<

 

Cause I found this one and now I can't get rid of the itch.

Link to post

Under the virtual cache guidelines in place since 2003 until new submissions were stopped in November 2005, markers like this were immediately archived when submitted as virtual caches. They were specifically mentioned in the listing guidelines as being unsuitable targets for a virtual cache. They're now thriving as waymarks.

 

Those 6,346 waymarks represent 6,346 virtual cache submissions that would've been archived. Those 6,346 waymarks -- just two categories worth -- surpass by several times over the TOTAL number of all virtual caches published worldwide in 2004 and 2005.

 

A solid argument for bringing back virtuals to GC.

 

Simply tweak the guidelines for what is acceptable and what is not, and there are 6,346 possible virtuals. Then factor in a way to verify with information that can only be found if the actual site is visted, which would reduce the number somewhat, and we're back to having another very viable, and widely popular cache category back. If it is a lame virt on GC, it would obviously be a lame waymark on WM.

 

Then we have the best of both worlds and POI's can/would still remain available on Waymarking.

 

I don't follow how Lep's example is an argurment to bring virtuals back to GC.com. It does illustrate that many people do like using their GPS to visit (find) places other than tupperware and ammo cans. It illustrates that any restriction on "wow"-ness was difficult to disseminate to the caching public. (In spite of the explicit wording in the guideline that "historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches" - people still submitted them). So your argument is to allow anything as a virtual (no matter how lame), assume that the submitter is in fact placing a virtual because a physical cache can't be placed there, and probably eliminate the .1 mile rule for virtuals so that argument that they blocked physical cache could not be used against them. If you took this approach, virtuals would soon constitute a significant portion of the the listings on GC.com. Instead of the threads about too many lamppost hides, the forum would be full of complaints that there are too many virtuals. Non-premium members, who don't have pocket queries to eliminate virtuals, would complain that they can't find any physical caches. TPTB accepted virtuals as a way to cache where a land manager did not allow physical caches or it was otherwise impossible to hide a physical cache. Their intent was always made clear that geocaching was about finding a hidden cache and not just visiting a site because it was there. However, many people found that searching for virtual caches was just as fun or even more fun than looking for a leaky box or a log only micro. Other people saw this as a way to share a neat place and, if you didn't have to hide and maintain a physical container, a pretty cheap and easy way to do it. TPTB realized that this activity was worthy of having its own website. One that was better organized to allow people to seek out the virtual caches that were truly interesting to them and avoid the ones that weren't. One that had the community involved in determining the criteria for listing a virtual cache instead of guidelines that had to be interpreted by volunteers who were also spending their time reviewing physical caches to ensure they were following guidelines. If anything Lep's example shows that this new site is succeeding quite well. People are listing places they find interesting and would like to share. Many categories request verification of your visit either with a picture or a verification question using information that can only be found if the site is actually visited. Some categories, like Best Kept Secrets, even go further by allowing sites to be listed with out giving away the object you will find so the finder can experience the "Wow, I didn't know this was here" experience of some of the best virtuals. I'm glad you like virtuals. I'm glad you would like to share neat places with the rest of us and that you like to visit the ones we share. I'm glad you like the game-like interaction of finding out the answers for the verification question and getting them confirmed before you post your log. I'm glad you like setting goals and keeping track of the places you've visited. You can do all of this on Waymarking.com. <_<

Link to post
Alice Band Posted Today, 08:55 AM

I would like to see the return of virtuals, but with stricter rulings, such as the return of Earthcaches so that the system does not get flooded with poor or lame examples.

 

The advantage of EarthCaches is that a regulatory body like the GSA is fairly well equipped to judge this kinds of submission. That option would not be possible for the wide range of other kinds of Virtuals on Geocaching with the current reviewer base. However, in Waymarking like Tozainamboku stated, the Groups that manage the categories are also equipped with the knowledge to judge submissions.

 

I agree with the others that there have been some poor virtuals placed in the past, but some of the surviving ones I've seen in the last six months were great.

 

This is due to the tight restrictions placed on the reviewers by Groundspeak. People were submitting 'just about anything'. The pratical offshoot from this would be dozens of "Found It" logs stating something along the lines of "Why did you think this was worth dragging me to see?"

 

Virtuals with a task such as being photographed next to it to qualify means that you still have to physically find and visit it. In other places you probably searched the place high and low and there is simply no secure hiding spot to be found but would still like to bring people into the area.

 

That is the classic definition of a Waymark

 

I still fail to see why people that claim to enjoy Virtual Caches are not willing to accept Waymarking? At least with Waymarking you can ignore things that are not of interest to you.

 

After reading lots of discussion about Virtuals vs Waymarks, still not one person has shown a single way that Virtuals have even a slight advantage over Waymarks.

 

<_< The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
Link to post
After reading lots of discussion about Virtuals vs Waymarks, still not one person has shown a single way that Virtuals have even a slight advantage over Waymarks.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

 

Sure they have. Virtuals count as a find :wacko:<_<<_<

Edited by CO Admin
Link to post

After reading lots of discussion about Virtuals vs Waymarks, still not one person has shown a single way that Virtuals have even a slight advantage over Waymarks.

 

On the contrary, I have not seen any convincing advantages to Waymarking.

 

To stay on topic as to why not bring back virtual caches, there are several reason.

 

1. Having them on GC is one less site for TPTB (I hate that term) to manage. This is really no longer a factor however since that ship has sailed.

 

2. Aside from the tracking issues, many of us in this discussion have forgotten what the learning curve is like to get used to GC, now we expect someone to take the same time on another site. A site that is characterized in every one of these threads as not being intuitive.

 

3. Contrary to a previous post that made it sound like I was saying all virts should be approved, no, that is not what I said. There are many instances where a physical cache is not practical. The argument to make them part of a multi is valid, however I have noticed that multi's tend to see less activity around me than do other types. Some have limited time to cache, or have done some DNF's on multi's, and avoid them (intentionally or otherwise). Historical monuments, interesting art, bridges and other architecture, etc. all fit nicely without having to go to multiple sites. I do think there needs to be standards and the WOW that was being used is not one of those.

 

I tried Waymarking at the start and have checked in occasionally since. I simply do not have the time to spend on such a cumbersome interface. I will continue to wander there occasionally.

 

I have accepted the fact the virts are gone, however I don't agree with the reasons and do participate in these threads. Those involved in Waymarking present it with a zeal usually reserved for religions or by ex-smokers. It is great it is working for you guys and I hope someday it gets fixed to the point that the rest of us find it useful. Until that time you will just have to accept, judging from these types of threads, it simply does not work for many, if not most, geocachers. I think WM is trying to attract the wrong market if it is geocachers.

Link to post
After reading lots of discussion about Virtuals vs Waymarks, still not one person has shown a single way that Virtuals have even a slight advantage over Waymarks.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

 

Sure they have. Virtuals count as a find :wacko:<_<<_<

 

BINGO!!!

 

They COUNT and THey give you a really cool new ICON , plus they started on GEOCACHING.COM.

 

I for one Loved the Virtuals that we have found , its like this some people love every cache they find ( micro or not) wilst others will complain about even a physical ( sorry bout my speeling) , cache with a LogBook.

 

I vote bring the Virts back !

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...